Brendan

I'm looking for some advice on teaching partial panel IFR technique. We use a Frasca 141 sim with dual 430's, and the partial panel set-up is with the AI, HSI, and both GPS's failed. Any suggestions for how to help a student increase proficiency with single nav holding and VOR approaches?

rickair7777

The trick is that they have to learn new references for pitch, bank, and heading.

Have them start with one axis at a time...the Frasca should be able to selectively freeze them.

Freeze everything else, then let them practice bank with the TC. Repeat for pitch and heading.

Once they have that down, add a second axis, and then all three.

HOPEFULLY they already know VOR nav and are not GPS-babies.

For the mag compass, make sure they memorize the corrections...if they can't recite those cold they will not be able to use a mag compass for heading control.

Mason32

Yes, absolutely teach the stick and rudder skills just like you are doing... and make sure they learn this stuff cold.

But please, while they are suffering through the torture chanber, inquire how they would handle such a situation in real life.... if the answer is anything less than declare and emergency and get no gyro vectors to either VFR or the nearest ILS above minimums then they need some more schooling in ADM.

ufgatorpilot

I remember one of the best things that my instructor told me during partial panel was, "hey, you've now got fewer instruments so you need to pick up the pace of your scan." That really helped me a lot. I would also stress how being properly trimmed and anticipating is even that much more important during partial panel IFR.

250 or point 65

another thing that i found helpful was to not always fail the same instruments. This really give them an understanding of where to grab the information that they need.

The biggest challenge I found when teaching someone anything in the Frasca was getting them over the bs "this thing is too sensitive" "its not realistic" "this sim sucks". The captain i was paired with on my last PC failed and wouldnt shut up about how sensitive and unrealistic the sim was. Who cares? Shouldnt we be able to hop in a completely different airplane and still do BAI?

If you are able to hop in the sim and do stuff PP with no problems, explaining to them that you are not good at the sim because you are proficient at it (cause really you get less sim time then youre students) but you are good because your scan is good, that will go a long way. It is also difficult for students to understand that it is a good thing that the sim doesn't move because you are going to be blocking out those feelings completely anyway when you're in the soup.

NoyGonnaDoIt

One of the things you find is that different people need different areas that need more work than others. One pilot may have scan issues of not understanding the relationship of the "replacement" instruments. Another might have control problems during turns. A third might have trouble with the simple math of knowing how many degrees there are between the current heading and the new one.

After an overview on the ground on the basis - replacement instruments, scan techniques (which should be related to the student's full panel scan), the role of the mag compass - I'd just go fly and keep a close lookout for the problem areas in flight and do a full debrief on the ground to get the student's own impressions of where he found the most trouble. And find ways of overcoming those issues.

BTW for the scan/mag compass issue, I've found it a good technique in an early lesson to cover or fail the mag compass for a substantial period of straight flight, both level and with climbs and descents. The idea is to give the student confidence that if he keeps the wings and ball level in the TC, the airplane will tend to remain on heading and that he can indeed fly with it instead of the AI.

And, please, don't allow the student who is good at this to come to the conclusion that partial panel is not an emergency.

Ewfflyer

Man, those were the days in those Frasca's. The number one thing in my teachings is the Scan. If their scan sucks from the start, then they are done once you start failing items. If their scan is based off of one instrument too often, then there's your first target to fail. Then just keep going on whatever they are relying on the most and whittle them down to minimum instruments. I don't think you can accomplish this in just one lesson. But developing the scan that works best for them is also a hard part, because instructors always teach what works best for them, without consideration to what might work best for your student.

Take some notes their next session, see what their crutch is, and try and balance the student out on their scan so that "when" something happens they can adjust without any complication.

Good Luck

**Btw, is there going to be a fly-in again this year? I didn't make it last year because the weather went to crap and I didn't feel like taking a pleasure flight without it being fun.

jedinein

So I'm out of KVNY heading to KLGB. I'm briefed and prepped for KLGB. KSNA is my alternate. I've got the charts pulled and am ready for KSNA, too. I'm even ready to return to KVNY, but that approach is over the rocks. It's IMC practically everywhere, the storm system we're in has IMC even at the usual out, the desert airports. I go partial panel, a vacuum failure, just south of POM (on the TEC route KVNY-KLGB for pistons). I'm approximately 5000' AGL over a bunch of airports. Should I dump my plan and dive for the nearby airports, struggling to keep control of the plane while pulling out the approach charts, briefing them, and hoping I miss the mountains that are on downwind, or should I proceed as planned and briefed, getting into KLGB or KSNA, whichever has the better chance of me landing successfully depending on weather and controller workload?

It's a great training scenario as closer is not always better. Partial panel, one may be better off sticking to the plan versus trying to pull a rabbit out of the hat.

For partial panel, a high scan rate is needed, but a high scan rate of the proper instruments. Assuming a vacuum failure that kills DG and AI, the TC and VSI are working:

If the TC is working, and one holds zero rate of turn, can the heading change?

If the VSI is working, and one holds zero rate of climb or descent, can the altitude change?

If one holds zero rate of turn, zero rate of climb or descent, and keeps the power the same, can the airspeed change? (Yes, but over a long period of time or in turbulence, we're talking about short term, next 30 seconds, kind of changes in somewhat smooth air. It's better to practice in smooth air and turn the turbulence on later.)

So if the heading, altitude, and airspeed can't change, why waste time constantly looking at those instruments? You can get faster information off of the TC and VSI. One also needs some good practice in making sure the plane is in trim, that will greatly reduce the IFR workload. It will also make an instrument failure easy to detect, the one that has failed is the one that is moving. (BTW, FRASCAs are great for learning to recognize instrument failures!)

Now the aircraft is under control, how does one navigate with a VOR? Turn in the direction the needle is moving until it stops. That is the reference heading. Roll out. Does the needle stay? If yes, turn 3 seconds at standard rate (approximately 10 degrees of heading change) towards the needle. That should get it drifting back towards center. If the needle starts moving, turn in the direction the needle is moving until it stops. When the needle is centered, take out the 3 seconds of heading change one did earlier. If that starts the needle drifting again, turn 3 seconds at half standard rate in the direction the needle is drifting.

The same technique works well for ILS localizers, except use half-standard rate turns or one wingtip low turns inside the outer marker if the needle is drifting. Once the course is set and the reference heading is found, one no longer needs to worry about a compass or what the heading is. Nor do we care about the winds.

The above is a quick and dirty summary of two books, four two-hour WINGS seminars, Lessons 1-14 in the instrument rating course that I teach, and several hours of proper practice in the FRASCA simulators. Once the students can trim, fly hands off, scan, and navigate, holding patterns become really easy. It's also in the holding patterns that many of the weaknesses of the previous pieces show.

Of course, when in actual IMC with a partial panel, someone had better be actively dying in order for me to accept a holding pattern, and then I'm demanding 10 mile legs, controller calling my turns, the no-gyro vectors, finding out where the alternates are and their weather, and so on. Even though I think I can handle it, there is no reason to not ask for the additional levels of monitoring and assistance. Pilots regularly die when partial panel.

rickair7777

Partial Panel Holding??? I have one word for that: "Unable"

Make them give you vectors. I think most controllers are savvy enough not to assign holds to an airplane with an instrument emergency.

But that's a good graduate-level scenario, and I fully agree that sticking with a briefed plan (or an approach you are familiar with) is a far better answer than improvising in IMC.

NoyGonnaDoIt

Agreed. And you'd likely declare an emergency if you couldn't get the handling you wanted.

But that's 90+% of the real world, not the training environment where overload and scenarios that test the limits is the name of the game.